Southern Baptist leader admits people are born gay…

I get rogerflat’s point now - everyone is born like he was, but the ways of the world messes them up. Those with Down’s Syndrome could snap out of it if they would just do what normal people advise. Born blind or deaf? Stop faking it because we’re tired of your self pity. When my son was 11 months old I horrifyingly discovered the hard way he is allergic to peanuts, but, according to rogerflat it’s all in his head because of some ouside event that happened to him, but now I can blame my son for his allergy since he is aware of it but won’t do anything to get it out of his head.

I love sailing catamarans, so I can believe everyone is born to sail catamarans, but something happened to most of them to turn them off of it. Therefore, those who don’t like to sail deserve my scorn for not following their true path in life.

If you don’t like gays then fine, but don’t try to convince me your dislike is rational. Although your opinion of gays may be in the majority, it doesn’t make it right.

Don’t be bitter because I will never accept you. I will fit into society, you never fully will, that is something that you will have to deal with on your own. You may be this consumate individual who just “happens” to be gay and everything I’ve said may not apply to you. Good for you.

You’re not going to negate all the things I’ve said just because they don’t apply to you personally. The facts remain when you push the bullshit aside. My opinions aren’t going to change your worldview about homosexuality, I know that.

I just think that to tell a molested child that they were born gay so that they feel good about being gay is terrible. Gayness is not always a pretty picture folks, and we need to be honest about that.

[quote author=“rogerflat”]Don’t be bitter because I will never accept you. I will fit into society, you never fully will, that is something that you will have to deal with on your own. You may be this consumate individual who just “happens” to be gay and everything I’ve said may not apply to you. Good for you.

You’re not going to negate all the things I’ve said just because they don’t apply to you personally. The facts remain when you push the bullshit aside. My opinions aren’t going to change your worldview about homosexuality, I know that.

I just think that to tell a molested child that they were born gay so that they feel good about being gay is terrible. Gayness is not always a pretty picture folks, and we need to be honest about that.

Wow, you’ve said a lot of stupid and terrible things so far, but this probably ranks amoung the most stupid and terrible.

I don’t understand your reasoning at all.

What evidence is there that shows homosexuality is by and large a choice? Or that it is by and large a product of sexual molestation?

Even before that, I know that I didn’t choose to be straight, its just the way I am. Why would I assume that just because somebody is different then me, they choose it?

I will fit into society, you never fully will, that is something that you will have to deal with on your own.

This is really society’s problem, and your problem. If you’re not mature enough to handle gay people, I really don’t see why this would reflect poorly on HappyHeathen.

If I hated Jews would it be their fault? Their problem?

Even if there is something that causes people to be predisposed to it from birth, they are a minority.

[quote author=“Keytard”]If I hated Jews would it be their fault? Their problem?

Even if there is something that causes people to be predisposed to it from birth, they are a minority.

And I’m begining to gather that you’re simply not big on minorities.

I think in Roger’s case it is not in the nature of taking a dump on minorities. I think he has very real issues with his own sexual identity. I’m not saying he’s a repressed bi or homosexual, but simply that he has no means to articulate what his sexuality is or where it comes from.

Next, let me ask a question, one that I am now asking regularly.

First of all, some people label themselves as Jews and like to hang out with other people who label themselves in the same way. This is quite different from the situation of homosexuals. I’ll agree that a person may be predisposed to label himself or herself a particular way having grown up amongst people who use the same label. The ‘predisposition’ is rather different in each case. I don’t think that Roger makes this distinction in any event, but making an analogy between the “Jewish” label and the “homosexual” label is a huge category error.

[quote author=“Salt Creek”][quote author=“Keytard”]If I hated Jews would it be their fault? Their problem?

Even if there is something that causes people to be predisposed to it from birth, they are a minority.

And I’m begining to gather that you’re simply not big on minorities.

I think in Roger’s case it is not in the nature of taking a dump on minorities. I think he has very real issues with his own sexual identity. I’m not saying he’s a repressed bi or homosexual, but simply that he has no means to articulate what his sexuality is or where it comes from.

Next, let me ask a question, one that I am now asking regularly.

First of all, some people label themselves as Jews and like to hang out with other people who label themselves in the same way. This is quite different from the situation of homosexuals. I’ll agree that a person may be predisposed to label himself or herself a particular way having grown up amongst people who use the same label. The ‘predisposition’ is rather different in each case. I don’t think that Roger makes this distinction in any event, but making an analogy between the “Jewish” label and the “homosexual” label is a huge category error.

So…what was the question? I was born into and raised by Jewish parents (not orthodox), but don’t really identify as Jewish (at least as pertains to religion). Nobody really knows our family tree that well, so it’s hard to know about my ancestors.

“Homosexual”, to me, feels like “male”, “hairy”, “hazel eyes”, “balding”, “big feet” - it’s simply who I am. And, by the way, I fit into society wonderfully. I teach at a university, I have friends of all orinetations, ethnicities, genders and ages.

History bears out a tradition of gradual enlightenment of society as regards racism, sexism, and other -isms. Stephen J. Gould discusses how 19th-century scientists repeatedly attempted to reify intelligence in order to prove that Caucasians are supieror to all the other races. Sicentific racism is still funded today! But we know that intelligence is not a quantifiable “object”, despite the various IQ tests (which was bastardized by American scientists and whose initial purpose in France was simply to identify those schoolchildren who might need a different approach).

So, ironically, those who “fit in” are those who adapt to a civilized society, where evolved variation is the norm. Those who point their fingers and label “inferior” are ultimately the outcasts.

(I’ve ignored Roger, but can still read his quoted posts post-disinfection.)

“The hands that help are better far than the lips that pray.”
— Robert G. Ingersoll

Happy Heathen says that he has always been homosexual, and who would know better than him? Unless you want to call him a liar, you’ve got to accept his self-report of his own life experience. That’s how he’s wired. I am interested in knowing your thoughts on moving from orientation to action. I suppose that someone somewhere may be “wired” for pedophilia or beastiality from birth. (Please do not misunderstand me, I am NOT equating homosexuality with these). Obviously, in those cases, the orientation (however it came about) would not justify the action. The same could be said for heterosexuals who have a sex drive on steroids - does that justify multiple sexual partners or adultery? If not, then what is the standard for translating orientation into action. Is it always permissible to give “genital expression” (I love that term) to one’s sexual orientation? Thoughts, please.

Next question: I know a woman who has been married six times to five men (she married one lucky guy twice). Then, at about the age of 45, she switched teams, and is now in a lesbian relationship. For everyone who knew her, it was clear that SHE LIKED GUYS. No question. She would tell you herself. Then, one day, we woke up to a new person. In her case, it’s almost like she is trying on a new dress. I think IN SOME CASES it is completely a choice, and in others, like Happy Heathen, its a natural state. Maybe there are others who grow into the change. You may see more of these types of choices today because it’s cool to be gay. The gay party line seems to be that this woman had to have at least latent homosexual tendencies, but that’s not the woman we all knew. I don’t buy it in her case. Am I totally off base here?

[quote author=“Bruce Burleson”]Happy Heathen says that he has always been homosexual, and who would know better than him? Unless you want to call him a liar, you’ve got to accept his self-report of his own life experience. That’s how he’s wired. I am interested in knowing your thoughts on moving from orientation to action. I suppose that someone somewhere may be “wired” for pedophilia or beastiality from birth. (Please do not misunderstand me, I am NOT equating homosexuality with these). Obviously, in those cases, the orientation (however it came about) would not justify the action. The same could be said for heterosexuals who have a sex drive on steroids - does that justify multiple sexual partners or adultery? If not, then what is the standard for translating orientation into action. Is it always permissible to give “genital expression” (I love that term) to one’s sexual orientation? Thoughts, please.

Bruce,
I think you know the answer to this. You know the answer because you made a point of indicating that you are not equating pedophilia with homosexuality. It is not even remotely acceptable to equate them. And why is that? Again, it’s obvious. The sexual predation of pedophiles hurts people; it hurts people a lot.

So when is it permissible to give “genital expression” to one’s sexual desires?

What do I care for a hell for oppressors? What good can hell do, since those children have already been tortured? And what becomes of harmony, if there is hell? I want to forgive. I want to embrace. I don’t want more suffering. And if the sufferings of children go to swell the sum of sufferings which was necessary to pay for truth, then I protest that the truth is not worth such a price.
-Ivan Karamazov

[quote author=“Bruce Burleson”] I think IN SOME CASES it is completely a choice, and in others, like Happy Heathen, its a natural state. Maybe there are others who grow into the change. You may see more of these types of choices today because it’s cool to be gay. The gay party line seems to be that this woman had to have at least latent homosexual tendencies, but that’s not the woman we all knew. I don’t buy it in her case. Am I totally off base here?

I think some people are in such need for love and affection that they will take it any way it comes. It is my opinion that for most it is a choice.

We accept homosexuals as just being different, but we condemn and accuse others of being delusional because of their dissimilar views, experiences and beliefs. How is this different? Seriously, I have not studied this area so someone tell me, is there proof that homosexuality is natural or a choice? (I am not being sarcastic, just inquisitive)

[quote author=“NobleSavage”]Yet, the non-Abrahamic-religion societies that I’m aware of had a well adjusted attitude toward bisexuality. [...] Love and sex was all the same to them regardless of the gender.

That’s not true. The Athenians, for example had, at best, a gruding tolerance for man-on-boy sex in some situations. This tolerance was limited because man-on-man sex is emasculating for the fellow in the “catcher” position. Assuming that the man is the “pitcher” and the boy is the “catcher”, it was tolerable: the man is still in the masculine role, which is fine, and while the boy’s role is emasculating, he’s not supposed to be a full man yet, so the harm isn’t too great. (A rather humourous account of the limited amount of tolerance for this sort of thing can be found in Plato’s Symposium.) If, on the other hand, you had two grown men having sex with each other, that would be bad because both of them are supposed to be fully masculine, so inevitably one of them would be violating his own masculinity.

It’s my assertion that the Abrahamic faiths are to blame for much of the bigotry in our society regarding sexual orientation.

I don’t think it’s trivial that the dominant religious traditions in our part of the world include some bits of scripture that bigots can latch onto. But I think that, at the fundamental psychological level, what grounds anti-gay attitudes are anxieties about gender roles, in particular masculinity. This doesn’t presuppose any religious outlook. Pagans are subject to it, as are Buddhists, etc.

If the US had a religious heritage that was predominantly Buddhist or Hindu or pagan, do you think anti-gay attitudes would be less prevalent? The evidence suggests otherwise.

I once saw a racist claim that the only reason why a white woman would have sex with a black man was if she’d been damaged through sexual abuse as a child.

That’s stupid. Everyone knows she can make a CHOICE about who she has sex with. She could even be a lesbian, and that would be socially acceptable.

So when is it permissible to give “genital expression” to one’s sexual desires?

When both parties agree. Age, like gay marriage, was decided apon by law. Changing those laws shows how we are heading into a repression.

I think some people are in such need for love and affection that they will take it any way it comes. It is my opinion that for most it is a choice.

Everything is a choice.

But I think that, at the fundamental psychological level, what grounds anti-gay attitudes are anxieties about gender roles, in particular masculinity.

Attacking religion doesn’t solve the issue. The issue that people who choose too have sex with members of the same sex want to use Church as a scapgoat for getting government tax reductions to reward them for their sexual deviance.

I say “no”. The best attack on religion would be to not participate instead of trying to manipulate it’s morals with law.

If the US had a religious heritage that was predominantly Buddhist or Hindu or pagan, do you think anti-gay attitudes would be less prevalent?

Too bad that situation will never exist. You think China’s gay community is welcome with open arms? Being gay in Buddist China was punishable by death.

The Athenians, for example had, at best, a gruding tolerance for man-on-boy sex in some situations.

[quote author=“waltercat”]Bruce, I think you know the answer to this. You know the answer because you made a point of indicating that you are not equating pedophilia with homosexuality. It is not even remotely acceptable to equate them. And why is that? Again, it’s obvious. The sexual predation of pedophiles hurts people; it hurts people a lot.

So when is it permissible to give “genital expression” to one’s sexual desires?

Anticipating such a response, here is my answer. “Genital expression” is appropriate when it does not harm people. Therefore, if engaging in a homosexual act with another person harms that person by causing that person guilt, shame, or increased ostracism from mainstream society due to social stigma, it is wrong (harm comes in many flavors). Same goes for heterosexual adultery or promiscuity. (This is apart from any religious basis for morality, which I understand is a non-starter here).

Bad Conduct - I agree that all actions are the results of choices. I disagree that all attitudes and basic psychological makeup are the results of choices. By the time we start making real choices, our basic personalities are pretty much set. If you and I are wired to like members of the opposite sex, why is it difficult to believe that some people could be wired to like members of the same sex? Even if you look at that as being a flaw, why couldn’t it happen?